SC rejects Anita Advani’s plea seeking recognition as Rajesh Khanna’s widow
Advertisement
The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to entertain a plea filed by former actor Anita Advani seeking recognition of her relationship with late actor Rajesh Khanna as one like marriage. A Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prasanna B. Varale observed that there was no ground to entertain the plea, describing it as “luxury litigation”.
Advani had approached the apex court after the Bombay High Court dismissed her appeal against a trial court order rejecting her suit seeking a declaration that she was in a relationship with the late actor like marriage and was his widow. In its judgment delivered on April 1, the Bombay High Court had upheld the dismissal of her suit, holding that the claim was barred by law as Khanna’s marriage with Dimple Kapadia was subsisting.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh held that a declaration recognising a relationship as one like marriage required the parties to satisfy the conditions laid down by the Supreme Court, including that they must be legally qualified to enter into a marriage.
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, which laid down that the parties to such a relationship must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried. “The tests formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court would indicate that the declaration of this nature seeks equivalence with marriage and marital relationship and must therefore also satisfy the essential tests for valid marriage although not formally married,” the High Court observed.
It further held that the requirement was not satisfied in Advani’s case because Khanna’s marriage with Kapadia had not been dissolved. The High Court also rejected Advani’s contention that her claim for a declaration recognising the relationship could be considered independently of her plea to be declared Khanna’s widow.
“The distinction between monogamous or polygamous live-in relationship cannot exclude the satisfaction of the tests laid down in D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (supra), which is clearly not satisfied in present case,” the judgment stated. Advani had contended before the High Court that she and Khanna had lived together for several years and projected their relationship to society as being in the nature of marriage.
She had also claimed that the two shared a household and celebrated festivals together. However, the High Court concluded that there was no merit in the appeal and upheld the trial court’s decision to reject the suit at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). “There is no merit in the First Appeal. Resultantly, the Appeal stands dismissed,” the High Court ruled. Advani had instituted the suit in 2015 against Kapadia, their daughters Twinkle Khanna and Rinke Khanna, and son-in-law Rajiv Bhatia, seeking recognition of her relationship with the late actor.
Advani had approached the apex court after the Bombay High Court dismissed her appeal against a trial court order rejecting her suit seeking a declaration that she was in a relationship with the late actor like marriage and was his widow. In its judgment delivered on April 1, the Bombay High Court had upheld the dismissal of her suit, holding that the claim was barred by law as Khanna’s marriage with Dimple Kapadia was subsisting.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh held that a declaration recognising a relationship as one like marriage required the parties to satisfy the conditions laid down by the Supreme Court, including that they must be legally qualified to enter into a marriage.
The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, which laid down that the parties to such a relationship must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried. “The tests formulated by the Hon’ble Apex Court would indicate that the declaration of this nature seeks equivalence with marriage and marital relationship and must therefore also satisfy the essential tests for valid marriage although not formally married,” the High Court observed.
It further held that the requirement was not satisfied in Advani’s case because Khanna’s marriage with Kapadia had not been dissolved. The High Court also rejected Advani’s contention that her claim for a declaration recognising the relationship could be considered independently of her plea to be declared Khanna’s widow.
“The distinction between monogamous or polygamous live-in relationship cannot exclude the satisfaction of the tests laid down in D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal (supra), which is clearly not satisfied in present case,” the judgment stated. Advani had contended before the High Court that she and Khanna had lived together for several years and projected their relationship to society as being in the nature of marriage.
She had also claimed that the two shared a household and celebrated festivals together. However, the High Court concluded that there was no merit in the appeal and upheld the trial court’s decision to reject the suit at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). “There is no merit in the First Appeal. Resultantly, the Appeal stands dismissed,” the High Court ruled. Advani had instituted the suit in 2015 against Kapadia, their daughters Twinkle Khanna and Rinke Khanna, and son-in-law Rajiv Bhatia, seeking recognition of her relationship with the late actor.
Advertisement
Note: The content of this article is sourced from a news agency and has not been edited by the ap7am team.